3 ms·
It's a little more complicated than that, though. The underlying issue for the university is whether she can effectively teach Muslim students when she thinks
by jlarocco 5y ago
It's a little more complicated than that, though.
The underlying issue for the university is whether she can effectively teach Muslim students when she thinks they're "scum" who should be deported. And, will Muslim students be comfortable signing up for her class now, or has she effectively steered them away with her racism? Regardless of how it came to their attention, the university undoutedly has some kind of zero-tolerance policy against racism.
Generally I agree with your sentiment, but I think this case squeezes into that small "little to zero" impact section.
- AutumnCurtain 5y agoShe is not pursuing a lawsuit against the university itself (at least at this point) for exactly the reason you point out here - a university cannot reasonably trust someone with those views to treat Muslim students fairly.
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago> for exactly the reason Do you have insider information about the case, or is this your synthesis? The former strikes me as being unlikely, because you seem to have missed that the cornerstone of the suit is the claim that she's not actually the one responsible for the anti-Muslim comment, which is what makes this defamation.
- ceejayoz 5y ago"Someone hacked my account to post that one comment that's in line with the other sorts of comments I've been posting for years... and they managed to use my IP address" is gonna have an uphill battle for credibility in court.
- munk-a 5y agoIt certainly will, but she's got every right to pursue it in court because sometimes that does happen.
- pwdisswordfish8 5y agoThis is not an answer to the question.
- Natsu 5y ago> The underlying issue for the university is whether she can effectively teach Muslim students when she thinks they're "scum" who should be deported. The article says that she denies writing that exact comment and that is in fact part of why the lawsuit has been permitted to go forward.
- colinmhayes 5y agoI don't think any of the students will believe that considering the comment was posted by her account and she has provided no evidence showing it wasn't her.
- Natsu 5y agoLet's see what the court says. I don't see any comment by "truthseeker" in the archive linked from the article so that part is not verifiable, I don't know how unique Disqus names are (there could be multiple "truthseeker"s with different spelling, spacing, etc.), and it's hardly impossible for someone to misuse another person's account. I would not expect anyone intelligent to comment on pending litigation, either, and it's entirely possible that she has literally no idea who on earth anyone else posting as "truthseeker" might be. The court called her allegations "plausible" (though that's a far cry from "true"), and the article also says that Benton posted an apology: "By revealing such details without making an effort to contact her and seek confirmation and explanation, and otherwise adhere to rigorous reporting methods, the tweets did not meet Nieman’s journalistic standards. I apologize and regret my error in judgment." So it seems to me that Benton has already admitted failing to validate this information, thus I'm reluctant to take it as given. That aside, if comments here are any indication, she's screwed even if this isn't true. Half of the posters here appear unaware that she denies making that comment. Comments like those can be used as evidence of damage to her reputation should she win.
- colinmhayes 5y agoYea if it turns out she didn't write that one he's got a big problem.